What is ‘digital literacy’?
Unitary and pluralist views of literacy
Download 7.07 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Chapter 4: The history of ‘digital literacy’
Unitary and pluralist views of literacyHannon points out a distinction between 'unitary' and 'pluralist' views of literacy. The unitary view, he states, is predicated upon the idea that literacy is a 'skill' and that there is an 'it' to which we can refer - a single referent, ‘According to this view the actual uses which particular readers and writers have for that competence is something which can be separated from the competence itself.’ (Hannon, 2000, p.31) In contrast, the pluralist view believes there to be different literacies. Hannon quotes Lankshear who links social literacy practices with a pluralist view of literacy: ‘We should recognise, rather, that there are many specific literacies, each comprising an identifiable set of socially constructed practices based upon print and organised around beliefs about how the skills of reading and writing may or, perhaps, should be used.’ (Lankshear, 1987, quoted in Hannon, 2000, p.32) Pluralists believe not only that we should speak of 'literacies' rather than 'literacy', but reject the notion that literacy practices are neutral with regard to power, social identity and political ideology. By intentionally or unintentionally privileging certain literacy practices hegemonic power is either increased or decreased (Gee, 1996). The pluralist conception of literacy is, to a great extent, similar to the postmodernist movement in the late 20th century. Whilst adherents are clear as to what they are against (in this case a 'unitary' conception of literacy) it is not always clear what they stand for. What constitutes a 'literacy'? What do 'literacies' have in common? Hannon attempts to bring some clarity by appealing to the notion of 'family resemblence', much as Wittgenstein did for the concept of 'game'. His argument is that although we cannot define 'literacy' in a way that would satisfy every critic, we can nevertheless know what it means in practice. This fits in well with the Pragmatic methodology I outline in Chapter 6 and with my belief that one of the fundamentally important differences beteween considering ‘literacy’ and ‘literacies’ is that the latter foregrounds human agency in a way that the former does not. Hannon, however, does not position himself as either a 'unitary' or 'pluralist' thinker with respect to literacy. After suggesting that theorists prefer unitary or pluralist conceptions of literacy depending upon whether they focus on literacy as a skill (psychology) or as a social practice (sociology), he questions why we need to choose between these two conceptions. ‘A full conception of literacy in education requires awareness of both,’ he states (Hannon, 2000, p.38). This is closer to the spectrum of ambiguity I will explore in Chapter 5 than the ‘wave-particle duality’ we saw proposed by Holme earlier. Although Hannon does not give a name to this 'third way' of dealing with literacy, it is difficult to argue against his rationale. 'Literacy' becomes 'literacies' and yet the latter can still, in some way, be separated from and identified from its cultural production. That is to say that, although created with norms and methods (implicitly) negotiated with communities, 'literacy' and the texts produced using 'literate practices' can be separated from one another. Indeed, without such a position, the concept of 'literacies' could collapse into solipsism as there would be no agreed way of talking about such practices and cultural constructs. Those working more recently than Hannon have indeed given a generic name to the types of literacies mentioned above. Known simply as 'New Literacies', their study is now a distinct and separate strand of literacy research. They seek, as Durrant & Green put it, to describe a more '3D' model of literacies including ‘cultural, critical and operational dimensions’ (quoted in Beavis, 2002, p.51). Attempting to describe and, to some extent, promote the new opportunities that digital, collaborative technologies afford society, 'New Literacies' theorists focus on new ways individuals can express themselves. They debate and try to explain how using these new technologies and methods of expression fit within, or complement, existing literacies. Although New Literacies is a new field of research there is nevertheless some debate and differing positions that can be taken. I shall explore this in more detail in Chapter 7. Requirements of a ‘literacy’
First, a definition including ‘literacy’ must have explanatory power and make a difference in practice. Although by its very nature it is likely to be metaphorical in nature, the term must be 'useful in the way of belief' (James, 1995). This Pragmatic element will be explored in more detail in Chapter 6 but, for now, I shall take it that literacy has to be for a purpose. Second, a definition mentioning ‘literacy’ must deal with the retrospective nature of literacy, either by including past (and future) instances of literate practice, or by explaining why the retrospective element is not required. A definition must deal successfully with the historical component and legacy of the 'literacy' element of the term. In other words, if the word literacy’ is used in new domains in ways not congruent with existing practice, then it would be better that another word was used. This will be important in Chapter 8 when we come to analyse what, in fact, ‘digital literacies’ are. Third, any definition that involves ‘literacy’ needs to explain adequately its relation to other metaphorical terms in the 'literate practices' arena. Proponents of a definition must explain whether the proposed term or concept is a derivative term, whether it stands in its own right, what it is predicated upon, and whether it includes other forms of literacy. This relates directly to what was latent in Chapter 2 and the concept of ‘umbrella terms’ and micro literacies’ explored in Chapter 7. Finally, anyone wishing to define a term including reference to ‘literacy’ needs to explain to what the modifier (such as 'digital' in ‘digital literacy’) pertains. For example, a broad definition of 'digital' would include calculators, whereas a more narrow definition may deal solely with devices that can (for example) access the internet. This can be difficult to ascertain as it is often merely assumed or implied, as we will see in Chapters 8 and 9. The definition does not have to go into much detail about this, but some kind of explanation of the ‘digital’ element should be present in some form. These, then, are the four conditions by which I will judge definitions of digital literacy under the Pragmatic method employed in this thesis. Those who propose definitions must deal adequately and convincingly with the following elements: ‘Cash value' or utility Retrospective element Metaphorical element Digital element The first of these, the utility of the method will be explained in the methodology section (Chapter 6). I will argue in Chapter 9 that attempting to define a single ‘digital literacy’ (or any other new literacy) in an objective, contextless manner is doomed to failure. Instead, after applying a Pragmatic methodology and considering the world of McLuhan, Ong and Csikzentmihalyi, I conclude that a matrix of configurable and contextualised core elements is more appropriate for scaffolding new literacy practices. Chapter 4: The history of ‘digital literacy’
‘If there are many things, it is necessary that they are just as many as they are, and neither more nor less than that. But if they are as many as they are, they will be limited.’ (Zeno of Elea) As alluded to in the introduction, this thesis has a large enough scope in trying to come to terms with digital and new literacies without attempting to define exactly what is meant by the ‘digital’. In addition, there is a large body of excellent work around traditional (print) literacy that I simply do not have the space to consider here. For practical reasons, therefore, I begin this chapter in the latter half of the 20th century with metaphorical uses of ‘literacy’ created by adding a modifying adjectival prefix (e.g. ‘information’ literacy). The field of 'digital literacy' has a relatively long history; it is a term that has evolved. Its beginnings can be traced back to the end of the 1960s when a feeling that standard definitions of 'literacy' missed out something important from the increasingly visual nature of the media produced by society. In 1969 John Debes offered a tentative definition for a concept he called 'visual literacy': ‘Visual Literacy refers to a group of vision-competencies a human being can develop by seeing and at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences. The development of these competencies is fundamental to normal human learning. When developed, they enable a visually literate person to discriminate and interpret the visible actions, objects, symbols, natural or man-made, that he encounters in his environment. Through the creative use of these competencies, he is able to communicate with others. Through the appreciative use of these competencies, he is able to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of visual communication.’ (Debes, quoted in Avgerinou & Ericson, 1997, p. 281) This definition is closely tied to those surrounding Traditional Literacy. It mentions interpreting symbols, communication and understanding. Dondis in A Primer in Visual Literacy made explicit the reasoning behind considering visual elements as requiring a separate 'literacy': ‘In print, language is the primary element, while visual factors, such as the physical setting or design format and illustration, are secondary or supportive. In the modern media, just the reverse is true. The visual dominates; the verbal augments. Print is not dead yet, nor will it ever be, but nevertheless, our language-dominated culture has moved perceptively toward the iconic. Most of what we know and learn, what we buy and believe, what we recognize and desire, is determined by the domination of the human psyche by the photograph. And it will be more so in the future.’ (Dondis, 1973, p.7) Those who espoused this doctrine were careful to stress the importance of both being able to both decode and encode, creating and communicating via images. Considine championed visual literacy as being ‘the ability to comprehend and create images in a variety of media in order to communicate effectively,’ leading to those who are 'visually literate' being ‘able to produce and interpret visual messages’ (Considine, 1986, p.38). More recently, with the explosion of what I will later term 'micro-literacies,' the concept of 'visual literacy' has been re-conceived of as 'media grammar literacy'. That is to say it stresses the ‘medium as being at least as important as the message’. I will explore this further in Chapter 8. In essence, the notion of 'visual literacy' is an important corrective to the idea that it is only textual symbols that can encode and decode information and meaning. As Lowe puts it, ‘visual materials in general are typically not considered to pose any reading challenges to the viewer’ (Lowe, 1993, p.24).25 Coupling 'visual' with 'literacy' not only prompts a debate about the metaphorical use of language but, by using 'literacy', suggests ‘entitlement or necessity, and the need to seek out deficiencies and remedy them’ (Raney, 1999, p.41). Hijacking the term 'literacy' for such procedural ends has, however, worried some who believe that it conflates 'literacy' with 'competence' (Adams & Hamm, 2001, p.vii).26 Whilst some in the early 1980s believed that 'visual literacy' may still have some life left in it, others considered the concept ‘phonologically, syntactically, and semantically untenable’ (Cassidy & Knowlton, 1983, p.88), as ‘not a coherent area of study but, at best, an ingenious orchestration of ideas’ (Suhor & Little, 1988, p.470). Each writer on the term has written from his or her viewpoint, leading to a situation akin to the apocryphal story of the six blind men tasked with describing an elephant, each doing so differently when given a different part to feel. The feeling from the literature seems to be that whilst there may be something important captured in part by the term 'visual literacy', it all too easily collapses into solipsism and therefore loses descriptive and explanatory power. The concept of 'visual literacy' continued until the late 1990s, eventually being enveloped by 'umbrella terms' combining two or more 'literacies.' Parallel to visual literacy from the 1970s onwards came the development of the term 'technological literacy.' It began to gain currency as a growing awareness took hold of the potential dangers to the environment of technological development as well as economic fears in the western world about the competition posted by technologically more adept nations (Martin, 2008, p.158). 'Technological literacy' (or 'technology literacy') was a marriage of skills-based concerns with a more 'academic' approach, leading to a US government-funded publication entitled Technology for All Americans. This defined 'technological literacy' as combining ‘the ability to use... the key systems of the time,’ whilst ‘insuring that all technological activities are efficient and appropriate,’ and ‘synthesiz[ing]... information into new insights’ (quoted in Martin, 2008, p.158) This literacy was one defined and prompted by economic necessities and political concerns. Although stimulated by competition with non-western countries, a growing awareness in the 1980s that computers and related technologies were producing a ‘postmodern consciousness of multiple perspectives’ with young people ‘culturally positioned by the pervasiveness of computer-based and media technologies’ (Smith, et al., 1988, referenced by Smith & Curtin, 1998, p.211-2) reinforced the need for the formalization of some type of literacy relating to the use of computers and other digital devices. Technological literacy seemed to be an answer. As we saw in a previous chapter, Gurak (2001, p.13) dubbed this a 'perfomative' notion of literacy, ‘the ability to do something is what counts.’ Literacy was reduced to being 'technology literate' meaning ‘knowing how to use a particular piece of technology.’ The 'critical' element of literacy, which Gurak is at pains to stress, including the ability to make meta-level decisions judgements about technology usage, were entirely absent from these 1970s and 80s definitions. Technological or technology literacy is too broad a concept as ‘nearly all modes of communication are technologies - so there is no functional distinction between print-based literacy and digital literacy.’ (Eyman, no date, p.7) Discussions about, and advocates of, 'technological literacy' had mostly petered out by the late 1980s/early 1990s. Growing out of the perceived need for a 'technological literacy' came, with the dawn of the personal computer, calls for definitions of a 'computer literacy.' Before the Apple II, 'microcomputers' were sold in kit form for hobbyists to assemble themselves. With the Apple II in 1977, followed by IBM's first 'Personal Computer' (PC) in 1981, computers became available to the masses. Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) were developed from the early 1980s onwards, with the first iteration of Apple's 'Finder' coming in 1984 followed by Microsoft's 'Windows' in 1985. There is a symbiotic link between the hardware and software available at any given time and the supposed skills, competencies and 'literacies' that accompany their usage. As computers and their interfaces developed so did conceptions of the 'literacy' that accompany their usage. The term 'computer literacy' was an attempt to give a vocational aspect to the use of computers and to state how useful computers could be in almost every area of learning (Buckingham, 2008, p.76). Definitions of computer literacy from the 1980s include ‘the skills and knowledge needed by a citizen to survive and thrive in a society that is dependent on technology’ (Hunter, 1984, p.45), ‘appropriate familiarity with technology to enable a person to live and cope in the modern world’ (Scher, 1984, p.25), and ‘an understanding of computer characteristics, capabilities and applications, as well as an ability to implement this knowledge in the skilful and productive use of computer applications’ (Simonson, et al., 1987, p.232). As Andrew Molnar, who allegedly coined the term, points out 'computer literacy,' like 'technological literacy' is an extremely broad church, meaning that almost anything could count as an instance of the term:
(My emphasis, quoted at thefreedictionary.com) It is somewhat ironic that 'computer literacy' was chosen as a term because it was ineffable, indefinable and a little outré. Later in the decade an attempt was made to equate computer literacy with programming ability. The idea of literacy not being the same as fluency is one to which we will return to in Chapter 8: ‘It is reasonable to suggest that a person who has written a computer program should be called literate in computing. This is an extremely elementary definition. Literacy is not fluency.’ (Nevison, 1976 quoted in Martin (2003, p.12)
Martin has identified conceptions of 'computer literacy' as passing through three phases. First came the Mastery phase which lasted up until the mid-1980s. In this phase the computer was perceived as alien, as ‘arcane and powerful,’ with emphasis being placed upon on programming and gaining control over it. This was followed by the Application phase from the mid-1980s up to the late 1990s. The coming of simple graphical interfaces such as Windows 3.1 allowed computers to be used by the masses. Computers began to be used as tools for education, work and leisure. This is the time when many certification schemes based on 'IT competence' began, including the ECDL, and computers began to be integrated into the home and workplace. From the late 1990s onwards came the Reflective phase with the ‘awareness of the need for more critical, evaluative and reflective approaches’ (Martin 2008, p.156-7). It is during this latter phase that the explosion of 'new literacies' occurred. Some type of 'synthesis' occurred with leisure time and workflows taking account of the transformative capacity of more widely-defined digital technologies. The main problem with computer literacy was the elision between 'literacy' as meaning (culturally-valued) knowledge and 'literacy' as being bound up with the skills of reading and writing (Wiley, 1996). As we have seen above, both knowledge and skills are elements that need to be dealt with explicitly in any definition of literacy. Procedural knowledge about how to use a computer was conflated in definitions of 'computer literacy' with the ability to use a computer in creative and communicative activities. Being able to use a computer to access knowledge and media is different from using a computer to create knowledge and media. The assumption that using a computer to achieve specified ends constituted a literacy began to be questioned towards the end of the 1990s. A US National Council Report from 1999 questioned whether today's 'computer literacy' would be enough in a world of rapid change: ‘Generally, 'computer literacy' has acquired a 'skills' connotation, implying competency with a few of today's computer applications, such as word processing and e-mail. Literacy is too modest a goal in the presence of rapid change, because it lacks the necessary 'staying power'. As the technology changes by leaps and bounds, existing skills become antiquated and there is no migration path to new skills. A better solution is for the individual to plan to adapt to changes in the technology.’ (US National Council, 1999, quoted in Martin, 2003, p.16) Literacy is seen as fixed entity under this conception, as a state rather than a process. It became apparent that ‘definitions of computer literacy are often mutually contradictory’ (Talja, 2005 in Johnson, 2008, p.33), that ‘computer literacy’ might not ‘convey enough intellectual power to be likened to textual literacy,’ (diSessa, 2000, p.109), and with authors as early as 1993 talking of 'the largely discredited term 'computer literacy'’ (Bigum & Green, 1993, p.6). Theorists scrambled to define new and different terms. An explosion and proliferation of terms ranging from the obvious ('digital literacy') to the awkward ('electracy') occurred. At times, this seems to be as much to do with authors making a name for themselves as providing a serious and lasting contribution to the literacy debate. As the term 'computer literacy' began to lose credibility and the use of computers for communication became more mainstream the term 'ICT literacy' (standing for 'Information Communications Technology') became more commonplace. Whereas with 'computer literacy' and the dawn of GUIs the 'encoding' element of literacy had been lost, this began to be restored with 'ICT literacy.' The following definition from the US-based Educational Testing Service's ICT Literacy Panel is typical:
(ETS ICT Literacy Panel, 2002, p.2) The skills outlined in this definition are more than merely procedural, they are conceptual. This leads to the question as to whether ICT literacy is an absolute term, ‘a measure of a person's total functional skills in ICT’ or ‘a relative measure’, there being ICT literacies, with individuals on separate scales (Oliver & Towers, 2000). Those who believe it to be an absolute term have suggested a three-stage process to become ICT literate. First comes the simple use of ICT (spreadsheets, word processing, etc.), followed secondly by engagement with online communities, sending emails and browsing the internet. Finally comes engagement in e-learning ‘using whatever systems are available’ (Cook & Smith, 2004). This definition of literacy is rather 'tools-based' and is analogous to specifying papyrus rolls or fountain pens under conceptions of Traditional (Print) Literacy. A particular literacy is seen as being reliant upon particular tools rather than involving a meta-level definition. 'Functional skills' is a term assumed to cover both the knowledge and the skills elements of literacy. We saw the issues with the multiplicity of understandings of ‘digital literacy’ in Chapter 2. The problem is that, as with its predecessor term, 'ICT literacy' also means different things to different groups of people. The European Commission, for example conceives of ICT literacy as 'learning to operate... technology' without it including any 'higher-order skills such as knowing and understanding what it means to live in a digitalized and networked society' (Coutinho, 2007). This is direct opposition to the ETS definition above - demonstrating the fragmented and ambiguous nature of the term. Town sees 'ICT literacy' in the United Kingdom as ‘a particularly unfortunate elision’ as: ‘ICT (information and communications technology) literacy appears to imply inclusion of information literacy, but in fact is only a synonym for IT (or computer) literacy. Its use tends to obscure the fact that information literacy is a well developed concept separate from IT (information technology) literacy. (Town, 2003, p.53) As Town goes on to note, this is not the case in non-English-speaking countries. ICT literacy is a concept that resides on the 'skills' end of the spectrum whilst claiming a 'knowledge' element that it cannot deliver. Download 7.07 Mb. Share with your friends:
|